Politics and Religion

GOD

Okay people, tell me how think we and the universe came into being also with an argument for your saying. I believe that God created everything and us. If the world and everything else came from a big bulge, where the heck did that big bulge come from to start with?

alright, I agree with Eric and I have a little bit to comment on this too, not to differ anything that Eric said, but to give my opinion...

-Science relies on the blind acceptance that everything can be configured mathematically, in some base or another. There is a problem with that, in that science cannot handle a null value. Why? Because if something were null, then you declare it as false, but null is still present, none-the-less.

on the blind acceptance thing, if someone can accept blindly the theories of Science, what is any different for someone to accept blindly [so to speak] the "theory" of there being a God? No one can prove that God does not exist, yet they cannot prove to an exact measure that he does. There are millions who know of God, and millions that believe in God [which, notice I said know and believe, there happens to be a difference], they cannot prove to you why, or how they believe he exists, but they do, it is a "blind acceptance" just a thought...

-Science relies on the fact that what you, see, hear, taste, and touch are all that there is. One flaw with that is, that, you yourself have made a point of, our sensory system is only compremised of electrical impulses. This leaves no room for something that can exist outside of all five of the senses.

If science truly believes that, then how can someone believe that wind is infact an object, or air better yet. You cannot see wind or air itself, you can see the affects of wind and air, but you cannot see the wind or air itself. Yes you can hear the wind, but you cannot touch the wind or taste it. Smell? well, depending on what aromas are on the wind''s current that would depict the smell sense. It fits one of the five sense, and not even that well. But Air, as I said before, you cannot see it, you cannot taste it, you cannot hear it, you cannot smell it, and you cannot touch it. Yet you believe it''s there? Just another thought...

-Science is like any religion, infact, science is a religion, you have a book, the laws of science, you have your ideals, or theories, you have your shrine, the laboratory, and you have your fanaticals. That doesn''t mean it''s right or wrong.

So true. Scientists are caught up in the theories of science, and basically "worship it" in a sense, [by the use of their time]. They are always trying to prove that their theory is correct, which could be categorized as justifying, because they are proving that their theory is the correct, efficient theory out of all the other hundreds of theories in the world. Once again..just a thought.

---*.::.*::.::*.::.*::.::*.::.*---

|-Seasons are Changing and Waves are Crashing and Stars are Falling - All for Us...

I see a few misconceptions in your views, Erased. Let me clear out some of those.

Actually, I would prefer to point out the flaws of Science.

-Science relies on everything being 100% testable. There are many problems with that, but one part is that if you have two conflicting forces, one manipulating the variable, and another attempting to determine the variable, then the experiment becomes invalid. An example would be if someone discovered a partical that proved god existed. God would simply move the partical, and then boom, experiment flawed, but god alive.

Some experiments have to take into account hundreds, if not thousands of variables. That does not affect their validity.

If the world is not testable, then what is it?

-Science relies on the blind acceptance that everything can be configured mathematically, in some base or another. There is a problem with that, in that science cannot handle a null value. Why? Because if something were null, then you declare it as false, but null is still present, none-the-less.

For a system to work, the laws of mathematics have to apply.

Ever hear of M-Theory? IT is the theory that dexcribes everything in the Universe. There are tons of variables that haven''t been simplified enough, so they still exist as infinites, or nil.

-Science relies on the fact that what you, see, hear, taste, and touch are all that there is. One flaw with that is, that, you yourself have made a point of, our sensory system is only compremised of electrical impulses. This leaves no room for something that can exist outside of all five of the senses.

You couldn''t be more wrong.

Science in the last century has changed to the point where our senses, save interpreting data, mean nothing. General Relativity, Nuclear Physics, Neurology, all of these rely on things that cannot be detected by the human brain. X-Rays, Gamma Rays, UH/L Frequencies, none of these can be detected by the five senses, but they''re still there, aren''t they?

I think General Relativity is the best example of this. Let me give you an example.

You are standing on a planet. Someone on a planet thousands of light years away leaves going directly towards you at many times the speed of the light [ yes, it is possible ] . You watch them in a telescope, as they get into their spacecraft, but then you feel a tap on your shoulder, and they are right beside you.

This is possible. Their light took thousands of years to reach you, but they travelled faster than their light.

e=mc^2

-Science relies on the fact that there is no dimensions outside of ours, until it is neccesary. Most scientific theories about creation, such as the big bang, rely on an alternate universe for the creation, but when it comes to the question of "Could god exist in another universe", for some strange reason, the answer almost always come to "No".

Again, you are wrong.

Outside Universes, or "Branes" can account for the shadow gravity we witness that all the dark matter and visible matter do not account for.

Modern science very much accepts up to 12 dimensions within our own, and a possible infinite amount of other Universes.

-Science relies on the fact that the object being tested is actually testable. Last time I checked, you could not positively check a large amount of uranium for STDs, because the testing equipment would be corrupted [Not sure on this one, but seems likely]. Perhaps what you are testing, is just not going to respond to your test.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Well...

I don''t think you understand. The ruggedness of our equipment does not change the fact that the scientific method will indeed work.

Science is like any religion, infact, science is a religion, you have a book, the laws of science, you have your ideals, or theories, you have your shrine, the laboratory, and you have your fanaticals. That doesn''t mean it''s right or wrong.

You have no clue what you are saying.

With science, you are putting faith into what you observe. You can narrow down the probabliity of something to 99.9~%.

With religion, you don''t even know why you believe what you believe. Your parents tell you to believe it from a young age, and you do. With your young mind being suseptable to suggestability, you don''t question it.

If I go and read the Mein Kampf, does just reading it make it true? No.

With science, you are putting faith into what you observe. You can narrow down the probabliity of something to 99.9~%.

With religion, you don''t even know why you believe what you believe. Your parents tell you to believe it from a young age, and you do. With your young mind being suseptable to suggestability, you don''t question it.

If I go and read the Mein Kampf, does just reading it make it true? No.

Why does reading the Bible make it true? What makes it true?

Science offers the why, and the how. Religion offers none of that.

alright, this "with religion, you don''t even know why you believe what you believe, your parents tell you to believe it from a young age, and you do it, etc." there''s a problem with that

I believe in God, that is a religion to some and a faith to others. I know why I believe in God, because he paid the price, because he loved me so much to pay the price, My mother never told me what to believe, she wanted me to believe on my own terms. She wanted it to be my choice, for me to choose on my own. She didn''t want it to be a forced on me thing.

the "why does reading the bible make it true" thing..there''s a problem with that. I do not think that reading the bible makes it "true" I believe in God, and because I believe in God I believe the Bible is true. Not because I read it.

Depending on what religion you can get the why and the how.

for example

Why do I believe in God? Why did He send His son?

He loved us soo much that He sent His son to pay the price.I believe in God because he paid the price.

The how?

God sent his only son, to die on the cross.

These questions aren''t hard to find the answers to. Maybe instead of judging what you think is wrong, you should read it, and make sure you know ALL of the facts and not just a part of it.

---*.::.*::.::*.::.*::.::*.::.*---

|-Seasons are Changing and Waves are Crashing and Stars are Falling - All for Us...